Brexit

[Witton Park]

Presumably someone has done a poll on this? Along the lines of:
Q1: what did you vote in the referendum
Q2: do you favour a no-deal Brexit (or however you want to phrase it - possibly along the lines of no customs union, since as you rightly point out a deal not involving a customs union could have been developed)

I'd be very interested to see the results.

Referenda are binary. In/out, yes/no and it is then for the Executive to implement the results.

When we joined without a referendum in the early 70s the question was "do you think we should stay" with a Yes/No.

When the Scots, Welsh and NI had their devo vote it was a Yes/No.

With Scottish independence it was Yes/No.

It is then for the executive to deliver.

In the case of the devolved national powers and independence, those nations all have pro Independence/separatist parties.

So if the electorate do not like the settlement post referendum, they have the option to give the executive a further kick in the teeth.

It is often said that a 50% or more mandate for the SNP in an election would be sufficient to trigger and indi ref 2.

Contrast that with our membership of the EEC/EU. Any dissent to our membership could support Labour in the 80s.
But once Labour switched to a Pro EU party, even out EUing the Tories, there was no way for the electorate to express dissent, or even get a change of pace, or policy.

So we saw initially the formation of UKIP, then the referendum party formed by Goldsmith. Although UKIP was formed earlier, it only gained a foothold after Goldsmiths failed.
UKIP took votes off Labour and Tory culminating in them winning the 2014 EU election with 27%.

The public found a way to express an opinion and force the issue - it took well 10 years.

The referendum win for Leave in 2016 really was the end of UKIP.

At the 2017 GE 85% of the public voted for parties committed to a clean Brexit:
1. Leaving the single market
2. Leaving the Customs Union / committed to setting up new trade deals.

So if the established parties now stitch up an agreement to be in the SM and/or CU they will have gone back on their campaigns of only 18 months ago.

We will be back to square one in the early 90s, with a totally pro EU establishment, ignoring the direction they had been given, and no party where a vote can be cast to express one's dissatisfaction.

I sense if we had a GE and an option for "None of the Above" it would achieve a resounding victory.

[DrPatrickBarry]

When we joined without a referendum in the early 70s the question was "do you think we should stay" with a Yes/No.

Well it would be difficult to "half stay" so yes/no was the right question

When the Scots, Welsh and NI had their devo vote it was a Yes/No.
With Scottish independence it was Yes/No.

I have forgotten so I don't know the answer here, but was there a detailed proposal outlining what powers these new assemblies would have? I assume there was. So at least people understood what Yes/No would mean.

It is then for the executive to deliver.

That was easy then, just deliver what was in the proposal.

Brexit could not be easier just deliver what was in the proposal.

But oh wait nobody thought to write one.

[Llani Boy]

That was easy then, just deliver what was in the proposal.

Brexit could not be easier just deliver what was in the proposal.

But oh wait nobody thought to write one.

Why can you not accept that the "proposal" was to leave or remain?

I did not vote to negotiate terms of leaving I voted to leave. Simple!

[Wheeze]

Anthony, I posted the comment verbatim from what was on FaceAche, not because of what it said directly but merely to illustrate the point that all is not a bed of roses in the EU. And the simmering discontent was what made the whole issue of the referendum bubble to the surface of own political scenario. Since then, we've become self absorbed in the whole process. Sometimes, one needs to look outside of the window and remember what brought us to this situation in the first place.

[Witton Park]

I have forgotten so I don't know the answer here, but was there a detailed proposal outlining what powers these new assemblies would have? I assume there was. So at least people understood what Yes/No would mean.

In General all the assemblies are evolving - as the EU has done. As I mentioned in my previous post, those involved have regular elections where they can support the changes.
They can vote in both assembly and Westminster elections.


Take Scotland - a first sign of disenchantment with the current setup would be a huge swing to the SNP or a huge swing away.
A swing to, will embolden the SNP to ask for another indi ref.
A swing away may well lead to a party pushing to end devolution.

There would have been no UKIP traction but for a building discontent that has always been there, and has been growing since Maastricht.

Northern Ireland is slightly different. I'm sure you'll know more than me, but they have had devolution before, suspended due to the troubles.

In terms of Scotland, they had 2 questions. Do you want a Scottish Parliament and should they have tax raising powers.
They got a Yes and Yes.

Then the Blair Govt introduced the legislation in terms of what would be devolved, what scope to raise or reduce tax, how many MSPs.....


So the direction was given and the executive got on with it.

Difference being, the Scots gave them the right answer.

The EU referendum was the first time the Executive has had to deal with the "wrong answer".

[anthonykay]

Anthony, I posted the comment verbatim from what was on FaceAche, not because of what it said directly but merely to illustrate the point that all is not a bed of roses in the EU. And the simmering discontent was what made the whole issue of the referendum bubble to the surface of own political scenario. Since then, we've become self absorbed in the whole process. Sometimes, one needs to look outside of the window and remember what brought us to this situation in the first place.

It is a truism that there is bad stuff going on in every country. I voted Remain largely from a gut feeling that, when a load of people (or countries) have problems, it is better to help each other solve the problems than just point fingers at each other. Obviously it is debatable whether the institution of the EU is the best vehicle for such cooperation, but it is what we've got and I would just have preferred us to be carrying on trying to improve it from inside.

[Wheeze]

And that is a perfectly calm and totally valid reason to go with your gut. My gut reaction was to leave. And after all, what have any of us really got to go on other than our gut? No one can know the future!
The political mud slinging and lying is just a sad but inevitable part of the process. And this whole dragging of heels around a deal is degrading the purity of the decision ..... whether you like the decision or not.
Personally, I have felt that the decision was knackered from the start because a sensible majority was not set. So we have a 50/50 split. Never a good place to start from!

[DrPatrickBarry]

deal is degrading the purity of the decision .....

The exact opposite of that is the problem. There is noting remotly close to a consensus among the 52% as to what brexit actualy is. You have everything from the no-deal supporters though to brexit voters who would be happy with keeping a close relationnship with the EU.

[Witton Park]

The exact opposite of that is the problem. There is noting remotly close to a consensus among the 52% as to what brexit actualy is. You have everything from the no-deal supporters though to brexit voters who would be happy with keeping a close relationnship with the EU.

You are incorrect Patrick. Probably because you do not understand us.

The consensus of the 52% is clear even if they may prioritise differently.

1. Control of trade policy and looking to forge new deals with nations outside of the EU - means leave the Customs Union.

2. Restore ultimate jurisdiction to the UK Supreme Court - means leaving the jurisdiction of ECJ.

3. Control of borders - end to free movement as under the EEA agreement, so leave the SM and not rejoin the EEA.

That was what we signed up to in the referendum as Leave.

Now if we manage that, we are happy.

Let me explain in more detail on immigration, which can get quite toxic.

I am happy to have free movement, so long as it is our elected Government, voted in on a manifesto to offer it, that does so and future Govts can change that.
ie it is under UK control and not EU control.

[Witton Park]

It is a truism that there is bad stuff going on in every country. I voted Remain largely from a gut feeling that, when a load of people (or countries) have problems, it is better to help each other solve the problems than just point fingers at each other. Obviously it is debatable whether the institution of the EU is the best vehicle for such cooperation, but it is what we've got and I would just have preferred us to be carrying on trying to improve it from inside.

All I would say to that is that the UN was set up with similar ideals.

It doesn't work either.

We have the UN Human Right Council with members from practically rogue nations on there.

UN Security Council members bombing areas of the Middle East like they are in some sort of competition.

We have NATO where the vast majority of the members sit back and do little, preferring to let a minority fund their security.

They come too politicised, the highly paid bureaucrats become unaccountable, presidential and are in position for the wrong reasons.


Progress gets blocked, slows and eventually everyone gets bogged down.